No. 4-117 / 03-1001Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed March 10, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joel D. Novak, Judge.
Defendants Meyers Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Modern Dent Repair, and Jeff Meyers appeal the judgment entered against them, following a trial to the court, in favor of plaintiffs Jeff Roberts, d/b/a Auto Color Concepts, and Auto Color Concepts, Inc.AFFIRMED.
Andrew Howie of Hudson, Mallaney Shindler, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
Jennifer Jaskolka-Brown and Jill Mataya Corry of Sullivan
Ward, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Defendants Meyers Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Modern Dent Repair, and Jeff Meyers (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Meyers”) appeal the judgment entered against them, following a trial to the court, in favor of plaintiffs Jeff Roberts, d/b/a Auto Color Concepts, and Auto Color Concepts, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Roberts”). Meyers contends that Roberts owed him a duty to mitigate damages, he did not do so, and his failure to do so acts as a total or partial bar to Meyers’s claim for contribution. We affirm.
Meyers and Roberts entered into a joint venture for the purpose of providing car repair services. While the parties had separate businesses, they held themselves out collectively as Automotive Appearance Group. Meyers and Roberts also entered into a commercial lease agreement with Clark Properties beginning June 1, 1999. The lease was for a term of five years, at $3771 per month rent. The tenant in the lease was identified as Auto Color Concepts/Modern Dent Repair and the lease was signed by both Roberts and Meyers. The evidence in the record shows that each party agreed to pay one-half of the monthly rent.
On or about March 1, 2000 Meyers breached the lease agreement by vacating the premises and failing to pay his portion of the rent due under the lease. Roberts remained on the premises and continued to pay his one-half of the rent. As a result of Meyers’s breach and failure to pay his portion of the rent, Clark Properties filed suit against both Meyers and Roberts for breach of contract, seeking past due rent. The district court found in favor of Clark Properties, held Meyers and Roberts jointly and severally liable for any outstanding rent obligation, and entered judgment against them and in favor of Clark Properties for $17,738.92. The court further found that Clark Properties had no duty under the circumstances of the case to mitigate damages because the lease had not been terminated, and it would be very difficult based on the nature of the existing business for the landlord to be expected to get a tenant that could cohabitate with Roberts’s business. Through garnishment proceedings Clark Properties was able to collect $9,000 from Roberts and the balance of the judgment from Meyers.
Roberts then brought the present action for contribution, indemnification, and breach of contract against Meyers seeking to recover the $9,000 garnished from him by Clark Properties. Meyers asserted several affirmative defenses, including that Roberts had a duty to mitigate damages and his failure to do so acted as a partial or total bar to his recovery. Prior to the commencement of trial the parties stipulated that Roberts would proceed only on the claim of contribution and that the only issues to be decided by the court were whether Roberts had a duty to mitigate damages and, if so, whether he had made reasonable efforts to do so.
The trial court stated that it could find no authority that would impose a duty on Roberts to mitigate damages under the facts and circumstances of this case. However, without clearly deciding whether such a duty existed, the court concluded that Roberts had met any such duty by working in concert with Clark Properties to attempt to rent the half of the leased premises vacated by Meyers. Accordingly, the court entered a judgment in favor of Roberts and against Meyers for $9,000. Meyers appeals from this judgment, contending that Roberts owed him a duty to mitigate damages and that Roberts failed to make reasonable efforts to do so. Specifically, Meyers claims Roberts had a duty to, but did not, take one or more of the following actions: actively look for renters, advertise the space for rent, seek someone to sublet the premises, and seek a realtor to find a sub-lessee.
The parties disagree on the standard or review for this matter. Meyers claims that because Roberts brought this suit based on the equitable principles of indemnity and contribution our review is de novo. Roberts contends that because the case was not brought as an equity action, and no one requested to transfer it to the equity docket, we are required to continue to treat it as a law action and thus our review is for errors of law.
We review a case on appeal in the manner it was treated at trial. Stanley v. Fitzgerald, 580 N.W.2d 742, 744 (Iowa 1998) Bricker v. Maytag Co., 450 N.W.2d 839, 841 (Iowa1990). The district court case caption does not indicate whether this case was filed at law or in equity,[1] nor did the trial court express a belief concerning what type of case it was. “Where there is uncertainty about the nature of a case, a litmus test we use in making this determination is whether the trial court ruled on evidentiary objections.” Ernst v. Johnson County, 522 N.W.2d 599, 602 (Iowa 1994) (citing Citizens Sav. Bank v. Sac City State Bank, 315 N.W.2d 20, 24 (Iowa 1982)). In addition, where the trial court labels its ruling a “decree,” this is an indication the matter was tried in equity. Id.
Here, the trial court ruled on the parties’ evidentiary objections, and it labeled its decision a “ruling,” not a “decree.” Accordingly, the relevant factors taken together indicate the matter was tried at law. Therefore, we review the matter for correction of errors of law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. The court’s findings of fact are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(a).
Based on our review of the record, we conclude the trial court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and its application of the law correct. We, like the trial court, need not determine whether Roberts (as a co-lessee) owed a duty to Meyers to mitigate damages because there is substantial evidence in the record to show Roberts did in fact act reasonably in his efforts to rent the half of the property vacated by Meyers. Roberts made certain that a sign remained in the front of the building indicating there was space for rent, and he worked in concert with prospective tenants and Clark Properties to show prospective tenants the property. In addition, the evidence shows the property was very difficult to rent because the type of building lent itself to only a limited number of uses, there were several other similar spaces available in the same complex, the space Meyers abandoned was used as access to the space Roberts used, and any subletting required the landlord’s written consent. Furthermore, we note that Meyers presented only limited evidence concerning what additional steps Roberts should have or could have taken to find a new co-tenant, and no evidence showing that any such additional steps were likely to have been fruitful.[2]
The burden of proving the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages rests on the defendant. Greenwood v. Mitchell, 621 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Iowa 2001). We conclude the district court did not err in determining that Meyers did not meet his burden to prove that Roberts failed to mitigate his damages.
AFFIRMED.
Page 83